IR 05000369/1992029
| ML20128G760 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 01/28/1993 |
| From: | Belisle G, Cooper T, Van Doorn P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128G742 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-369-92-29, 50-370-92-29, NUDOCS 9302160099 | |
| Download: ML20128G760 (2) | |
Text
- - _ - _ _. - - - - _ _ _
.
- j
%
gg
%,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON o
REGtoN 11 Y
$
'"
~#
ATLANTA. GEORGI A 30323 p
.....
Report Nos. 50-369/92-29 and 50-370/92-29 Licensee:
Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242 Facility Name: McGuire Nuclear Station 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370 License Nos.
Inspection Conducted:
December 20, 1992 - January 16, 1993 Inspector:
1%/7.
%d A
_ //f7/97 PT K. Q d Doorn, Sr. Rbsident Inspector Date/ Signed
I1 N
//d'/[93 Inspector:
re T. A4%ooper, Reside #t inspector DatefSigned Approved b :
d182hb
/
A. Belisle, Section Chfef Date' Signed Division of Reactor Projects SUMMARY Scope:
This routine resident inspection was conducted in the areas of-plant operations, surveillance testing, maintenance observations, and followup on previous inspection findings.
Results:
In the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
The inspector noted that the licensee's Total quality Management philosophy is being utilized through activities such as Shift Supervisors meetings (paragraph 2.d) and quality improvement projects such as the work control improvement project (paragraph 4.b).
The inspector also noted improved diesel generator reliability (paragraph 4.c).
ID no 9302160099 93o12g
- k!
gDR ADOCK 05000369 d
N PDR yl
j:
.
i
.
.
.
.
RE_ ORT DETAILS P
1.
' Persons Contacted g
Licensee. Employees D. Baxter, Support Operations Manager A. Beaver, Operations Manager J. Boyle, Work Control Superintendent D. Bumgardner, Unit 1 Operations Manager
.
B. Caldwell, Training Manager
- W. Cross, Compliance Security Specialist T. Curtis, System Engineering Manager F. Fowler, Human Resources Manager
',
- G. Gilbert, Safety Assurance Manager P. Guill, Compliance. Engineer =
- B. Hamilton, Superintendent of_0perations s
B. Hasty, Emergency Planner
!
- P. Herran, Engineering Manager
L. Kunka, Compliance Engineer E. Geddie, Station Manager
- T. McMeekin, Site'Vice President R. Michael, Station Chemist
- T. Pederson, Safety Review Supervisor
- H. Pope, Instrument & Electrical Superintendent
- R. Sharpe, Regulatory Compliance Manager.
B. Travis, Component Engineering Manager R. White, Mechanical Maintenance Superintendent Other licensee employees contacted included craftsmen, technicians, u
operators, mechanics, security force members, and office personnel.
NRC Resident Inspectors j
- P. Van Doorn, SRI T. Cooper, RI
- Attended exit interview 2.
Plant Operations _(71707).
,y" a.
Observations y
The inspect _ ion. staff reviewed plant operations!during the-reporti l
period to verify conformance with applicable regulatory -
requirements. Control room._ logs, shift supervisors' logs, shift
-
turnover. records and equipmen_t' removal. and restoration records were routinely reviewed.
Interviews were~ conducted-with; plant
-
operations, maintenance, chemist'ry, health. physics, and performance personnel.
'
,
'
Activities within the control room were monitored during shifts and at shift changes. Actions and/or activities. observed were
.;
- - _ _ _ _ _
. _ - _ _ _ _ _
.
.
conducted as prescribed in applicable station administrative directives.
The complement of licensed personnel on each shif t met or exceeded the minimum required by Technical Specifications (TS). The inspectors also reviewed Problem Investigation Reports (PIRs) and Operations incident Reports (OIRs) to determine whether the licensee was appropriately documenting problems and implementing corrective actions.
Plant tours conducted during the reporting period included, but were not limited to, the turbine buildings, the auxiliary building, electrical equipment rooms, cable spreading rooms, and the station yard zone inside the protected area.
During the plant tours, ongoing activities, housekeeping, fire protection, security, equipment status and radiation control practices were observed.
On January 6,1993, the inspector heard a loud banging sound while inspecting the Unit 1 Auxiliary Feedwater (CA) pump room.
Moreover, portions of the CA discharge piping felt warm.
The sound was believed to be cause by rapidly condensing steain.
The inspector expressed concern to the control room Senior Reactor Operator (SRO'; and later reviewed temperature indications for the four CA lines.
The CA line temperatures for Steam Generator (SG)
IB read the highest at 190 degrees F.
A monitor is set to alarm at 200 degrees F.
The alarm is provided to indicate backleakage through the CA check valves; this backleakage could lead to steam binding of CA pumps.
The licensee had operated the 1A CA pump the previous day. The licensee isolated the line to IB SG for approximately 1/2 hour. The sound ceased and did not return, b.
Unit 1 Operations The unit began the inspection period at 100 percent power and continued to operate at that power level, except for several brief periods of small power reduction to conduct testing, c.
Unit 2 Operations The unit began the inspection period at 100 percent power and continued to operate at that power level, except for several brief periods of small power reduction to conduct testing.
d.
Shift Supervisor Meeting The inspector attended a Shift Supervisor (SS) meeting on January 8, 1993. The Shift Operations Manager conducted the meeting and, in keeping with the licensee's Total Quality Management (TQM)
phi' sophy, openly sought input on various subjects from the operating crew members.
Some of the subjects that were discussed included: diesel generator tagouts, utilization of operations test technicians, license class peer selection process, observation ~ and l
l--
___ - __ _ ______________
.
enhancement of simulator training, operations chemical inventory, and outage resource requirements, e.
Procedure Adherence Presentation The licensee has continued to promote a " rule based" procedure adherence philosophy as opposed to a " knowledge based" philosophy.
The licensee's rule based philosophy expects personnel to utilize their knowledge while implementing procedures but not to step out of the procedures or cease to follow them when difficulties arise.
Exceptions are allowed for abnormal and emergency situations and appropriate guidelines are provided for these cases.
The inspector observed a presentation by the Superintendent of
_ _.
Operations to an operations shift.
The Superintendent thoroughly explained this philosophy and management's expectations.
No violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Surveillance Testing (61726)
Observed Selected surveillance tests were analyzed and/or witnessed by the resident inspection staff to ascertain procedural and performanca adequacy and conformance with the applicable TS.
Selected tests were witnessed to ascertain that current written approved procedures were available and in use, that test equipment in use was calibrated, that test prerequisites were met, that system restoration was completed and acceptance criteria were met.
The selected tests listed below were reviewed or witnessed in detail:
-
PROCEDURE EQUIPMENT / TEST PT/2/A/4252/018 2B CA Pump Performance Test PT/1/A/4208/01B 1B NS Pump Performance Test PT/1/A/4209/02A Chemical and Volume Control System Train A Valve Stroke Timing PT/2/A/4456/028 VS Train B Valve Stroke Timing Fet water Train B Valve Stroke Timing
-
PT/2/A/4253/028 i
>
No violations or deviations wer e identified.
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
.
.
4.
Maintenance Observations (62703)
a.
Observation Routine maintenance activities were reviewed and/or witnessed by the resident inspection staff to ascertain procedural and-performance adequacy and conformance with the applicable TS.
The selected activities witnessed were examined to ascertain that, where applicable, approved procedur?s were available and in use, that prerequisites were met, that equipment restoration was completed and maintenance results were adequate.
The selected maintenance activities listed below were reviewed or witnessed in detail:
WORK ORDER ACTIVITY 92089493 Coolant Refrigerant low Pressure Switch Calibration
'B' Control Room Chiller 92089493 Hot Gas Bypass Temperature Switch Calibration
'6' Control Room Chiller 92089493 Condenser Water Differential Pressure Switch Calibration
'B' Control Room Chiller 92089474 Control Room Air Handling Unit Belt Replacement 92089465 2B Residual Heat Removal Miniflow Switch Calibration 93001373 Perform Preventive Maintenance on Power
'
Range Neutron Flux Monitor N43 93001375 Perform Preventive Maintenance on Power Range Neutron Flux Monitor N44 b.
Work Control Quality Control Improvement Project The licensee began a review of the work control process as a quality improvement project. These orojects were implemented in accordance with the TQM philosophy. The licensee has completed the initial review and is beginnin9 the implementation phase.
Implementation will be accomplished first at the licensee's Oconee Nuclear Station. The inspector attended a presentation that provided an overview of the project and current status.
Project objectives included: Do More, Better, with less; Reengineer Work Control Process (fundamental rethinking, dramatic quality improvements, dramatic reduction in inefficiencies); Enhance
- -
__- - -__
__
__
_
__ _
.-
.
.
--
.
.
-
-
--
-
-
.
~
..
..
Quality of Work Package Delivered to Craft; Improved Coordination Between Groups; Simplify _ Documentation Requirements; Improve Effectiveness of Personnel; and Consistent implementation Between
Sites.
Key changes that were planned -for implementation included: use of troubleshooting teams for on-the-spot-minor repairs; use of multi-skilled work teams; site-wide master scheduling; use of the latest technologies such as pen computers and electronic libraries;.and developing performance indicators to accurately measure the efficency of the work-control 3rocess.
While-these changes are geared toward cost savings ~, otler benfits that could be realized.
-
included: improved work planning, increaseed. system availability, and fewer work package. transfers between groups.
c.
Diesel Generator Reliability Status The inspector reviewed the most recent (4th quarter 1992)-Diesel Generator (DG) reliability data. The 12 month cumulative unavailability for all four DGs was below 1 percent; below the industry median; and below the 1995 industry goal of 2 percent.
No DGs failures have occurred during the last 20 tests.. Failures in the last 100 tests were 4,2,2 and 2 for DGs 1A, 18, 2A'and-2B respectively.
No failures. occurred in 1992. The licensee attributes the improving reliability to the dedicated diesel maintenance crews.. The licensee has also assigned a full time system engineer to the.DGs and will use component engineers.as needed. The improving reliability of the DGs represents a significant effort to achieve risk reduction and improved plant safety.
,
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Followup on Previous Inspection Findings (92701,92702)
The following previously identified item was-reviewed 'to a::certain Lthat
,
the licensee's response was applicable, and licensee actions were in coapliance-with regulatory requirements and corrective actions have been implemented. - Selective-verification included record review, observations, and discussions with licensee personnel.
(Closed) Violation '370/91-31-01:
Failure to Provide Adequate Procedures for Volumetric Leak Rate Calibration Resulting in Inoperability of Both Trains of Annulus Ventilation.
The licensee response for this item was-submitted on March 2, 1992.
Corrective _ actions included maintenance and'
operation procedure revisions, training of appropriate personnel, changes-to work controls for the'. task, and the installation of Control Room alarms for the annulus doors.
6.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on January 14, 1993,
_
_. _.
-_
~
..
..
..:.
.
- 6 with those persons indicated in paragraph I above.
The licensee representatives present. offered no dissenting comments, nor did they_
identify as proprietary any of the information reviewed by the_ inspectors-during the course of their inspection.
, ',
.
,,.
,
t t-
I b-l-
.-
t
-
rr